Since the beginning, there has been a semi-formal social contract between the sexes which worked for the good of men, women, and their children especially. This existed is because men and women are different. These differences aren’t social constructs; they’re based in biology. In a healthy society, these differences complement each other.

Men and women should respect each other

In times past, guys were taught to treat all women with respect. As I’ve heard it said, “You even tip your hat to the town hooker.” In return, women respected them back. Men were gentlemanly; women were ladylike. After the mid-1960s, men were still expected to act gentlemanly, but women could act however they want. Although most women still have pleasant personalities, many act in ways that before would’ve been considered verging on madness.

Why this used to work: Mutual respect was great while it lasted, making society happy and harmonious.

Why this stopped working: Feminists, wanting an unhappy and disharmonious society, declared us the enemy and started lying about us. We’re still expected to uphold our end of the bargain (though paradoxically, giving too much respect can cause guys not to be taken seriously). Meanwhile, women infected with the feminism mind-virus believe they have license to act as nasty as they want. (It doesn’t help that hordes of thirsty guys have enabled them to think they can get away with anything and still be desired.) This is a major reason why the social environment sucks. However, individual beauty is fleeting, and the sexual marketplace is overdue for a correction.

What can be done: Give default social respect to the deserving. Feel free to call out those who act snotty. Calmly explain that unprovoked rudeness is very unattractive to any self-respecting guy. If all men refused to tolerate the intolerable, attitudes would begin to change.

Men and women don’t fight each other

This is a very difficult and ugly topic. Initiating force is wrong, no matter who does it. Those who disregard this should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.

Violence between men—fistfights and even duels—was once tolerated by the law. That now seems a bit savage, like animals fighting for pack hierarchy. (Today, delivering badly-needed attitude adjustments, literally fighting for your honor, or even legitimate self-defense could get you a criminal record. Settling disputes through lawyers is far from perfect, but all that’s another story.) However, even during those rougher times, hitting women was considered a foul deed. Offenders got subjected to shunning, charivari (basically a jeering crowd), or even mob justice. The law took action too, and flogging posts were once considered.

Why this used to work: Civilized men don’t use their natural advantage of strength to lord it over their wives and girlfriends. Civilized women don’t take advantage of this prohibition to strike us with impunity.

Men were expected to exercise self-restraint, and women likewise in their own way. Both parties acting civilized benefited everyone. Also, women in earlier times could be quite spirited, but provoking us to the limits of our patience was abnormal. That wasn’t ladylike, and reputation mattered. Further, chronic “scolds” got their own penalties, such as the ducking stool.

Why this stopped working: Violence by men against women is still strongly discouraged (though paradoxically, it’s not exactly a turn-off for some women). However, violence by women against men is considered far more acceptable. On TV or in a movie, it’s dreadful when a man slaps a woman, but a woman kicking a man in the nuts is depicted as funny. Too much “you-go-girlism” is doing a great disservice. Think of the Antifag member who set out to take “100 Nazi scalps”, but when she tried to choke a guy, she got decked in two seconds.

In any event, it’s a myth that women are never violent. Some of them even think it’s cute enough to admit online. A Jezebel article “Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have” says:

According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren’t fighting back. With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who’s gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let’s just say that it’d be wise to never ever fuck with us.

Four specific anecdotes follow. Let’s just say that it’d be wise to never ever pick fights with people who are stronger than you. In any case, contrary to the stereotype, apparently lots of men are showing incredible self-restraint.

What can be done: I’ve had two past girlfriends who hit me. I never retaliated, or even shook my fist. Eventually I dumped them, though for other sub-par behaviors. Today, I have less tolerance. If a girlfriend hits you, I recommend one warning, at the very most; after that, she’s out the door. Without going into a long legal discussion, you’re always “wrong”, and it doesn’t matter that you were legitimately defending yourself. You might think (as I once did) that it doesn’t matter because she hits like a girl, but that’s still an intolerable level of disrespect. It’s even better to bail before things get that toxic. Who wants to deal with a bunny boiler anyway?

Men should be masculine and women should be feminine

I swear I wasn’t the one who recommended this.

Blurring the distinctions between the sexes was one of the first goals of cultural Marxism. Today, this has succeeded beyond Comrade Marcuse’s wildest dreams. However, all that’s unnatural. It’s another reason why today’s social environment sucks.

Why this used to work: Straight men are hard-wired to desire feminine traits, and straight women like masculine guys. It doesn’t take an evolutionary biologist to understand why. This includes both appearance and behavior.

Why this stopped working: Beginning in the mid-1950s, second wave feminism started denigrating male traits, and they’re still at it with this “toxic masculinity” baloney. Through their rhetoric, they convinced a lot of guys that women don’t like masculinity; take a wild guess how that worked out for guys who believed it!

Feminists also tricked millions into believing that femininity was beneath them. The way they told it, the “patriarchy” somehow made them take on these natural and endearing attributes. However, we don’t like unfeminine, unladylike women any more than women like wimpy guys.

Earlier I mentioned women who blow you off if you show too much respect, and those who go for violent guys. One could chalk up these paradoxes to irrationality, self-esteem problems, Daddy issues, or confusing obnoxious behavior with confidence. Still, surely this is made worse by the shortage of decent guys unafraid to act like real men.

What can be done: On our part, men must ignore feminists when they tell us that masculine traits are bad. One of the best things the Manosphere has done is to show how absurd that is and prevent men from further sabotaging their love lives. There are also ways we can encourage femininity too. For example, once I talked a pretty girl out of getting a piercing through the bridge of her nose. I might be deplorable, but I’m capable of the occasional good deed.

Conclusion

Hit the SJWs where it hurts, their credibility

Feminists want to keep all the privileges that chivalrous treatment gave them. Meanwhile, in the name of equality (which they already had under the law by the early 1960s), they keep pushing for preferential treatment. Could it be time to bring back the ducking stool?

377 Responses

“Feminists generally deny all this. They start from the belief that everyone is supposed to be the
same”

Not just feminists, but also corporations, governments and communists. Why is this? And why isn’t anyone ever allowed to ask why “everyone is supposed to be the same”. To the extent that this is supposed to be a self-evident good it is also an unexamined assumption and therefore a potentially very vulnerable first principle.

Because for corporations it serves their ends for society to be seen as the same. They will be easier to control, more compliant with authority, and more altruistic allowing things to go on as is. It serves women since society is encoded to view women as more valuable than men so no matter how equal things get, women will be treated as victims giving them more of a social edge no matter what direction society goes to.

my theory is that David Rockefeller or whoever happened upon an anthill and saw how hard all those identical ants were working for their queen and decided he wanted one of those, but on a colossal scale

one of these days Ill read Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron:
“In the year 2081, amendments to the Constitution dictate that all
Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking,
or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General’s
agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear “handicaps”:
masks for those who are too beautiful, radios inside the ears of
intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic”

I think Orwell’s 1984 was originally supposed to be 1948 but the dystopia was running late. In this case I think 2081 might need to be brought forward to 2018 as it is very much ahead of schedule. I keep meaning to read Vonnegut

Well, look at Animal Farm. That was just taking past events and putting them into an allegorical story, which ended up being a pretty dead-on forecast of the future. I think 1984 was just a larger, more sophisticated expansion of the same concept.

I just went to an interesting book discussion where the authors stated that propaganda works best when it reinforces basic reality. I laughed because in the west, people believe all kinds of unrealistic things.

Feminism and diversity which claims to treat all as equal is nonsense since the whole notion of both is that some groups are victims and better at things (non-white non men) and others are less so but privileged. Diversity is used to create homogenous workplaces made up of a single group (provided they are non-whites) and is being exploited masterfully by the latest non-white immigrants.

there is a lot of double think involved of course. Re. propaganda, it’s probably true to an extent that it works best if it taps into your existing belief systems however propagandists are always flexing their muscles to see just how well they can get everyone else to believe in lies. The master propagandist, or magician, or hypnotist can after all get us to believe that lies are truth and that truths are lies.

MONEY. Money requires QUANTITY.
Quantity is the result of equality, diversity, globalization. Equality depends on Special/Invented (unnatural) RIGHTS. Why equality? To give them free education(automatons), to give them undeserved jobs, so they can work for them to BUY TECHNOLOGY from them, thus to be “equal”, thus to obtain more MONEY, that these big corporations will collect eventually to produce more technology, and invent more rights, to sell them to those who do not deserve them, thus to buy their VOTE.

Equality means the collective serving them. The state does not serve people, people serve the state. Google is the same, it collects money, while people create content for Google, like youtube, or webpages for their search engine, then they censor what is inconvenient. Microsoft… the same, they don’t protect the user, they are protecting their software against the user(the biggest threat for them) to make windows fool-proof, to have more people serving microsoft’s interests(MONEY) thanks to QUANTITY.
Equality for corporations means that the collective protects their wealth, status, and their dysgenic families, that they themselves cannot protect nor preserve; it also means that they can keep stealing resources and technology from men. For that reason is that they use women as victims. Women are the perfect TOOL for that because they are adapted specifically to stimulate the man: his sexuality and empathy. That is why we have prostitution/porn everywhere, different variations, and oppression myths, different variations too, to extract things from men. e.g. divorce laws, girls’ education, women’s health, maternity leave, sperm banks, etc. etc. etc.

Equality also means emasculation. Girls studying/working together with men is unnatural, and requires females getting special treatment and men being demonized. Making women work costs tons of money, women going to universities also costs tons of money, oppression myths, sexism myths, cost tons of money. Virginity in females is human nature, but does not produce as much MONEY as whores, thus pretending girls can be sexually-equal to men, means abortion, contraception, divorce laws, etc. etc. BILLIONS!. And Who is the intermediary in all this transference of resources, to solve the fallacy that equality is? THE STATE ITSELF, which is not just the government, but banks, the media, Google, Hollywood, Microsoft, pharmaceutics, etc, etc., etc. Big parasites. And who solves the real problems and chaos caused by the state/feminism? MEN, always men.

Equality also means that parasites can disguise their nature and intentions. It means that the capacity of individuals is not TESTED, which has two BIG benefits for them: Not being tested means that potentially dominant men do not develop their masculinity properly. The other benefit is that parasitic, opportunistic individuals, by not being tested they are not exposed as they really are, then they prosper politically, with words, emotions, laws, indoctrination, etc, etc, and grow/expand with the help of technology that does NOT belong to them, but that they have access to, thanks to equality.

many good points there. Equality is ultimately just a word, a concept and a rallying cry. It sounds good, but it always involves a comparison of one thing against another and at that level it can seem to make some sense, but the more such comparisons are made, the more nonsensical it gets. As an ideal it works to an extent to the extent that it reflects some kind of common sense about fairness and justice – why should a woman not be able to do X if a man can do it, etc. In that sense, which typically sees equality as being about equality of opportunity it is a slogan quite capable of making the world a fairer place. But that is not how the feminists who determine what feminism is about, and the marxists and globalists behind them, actually mean by equality. What they mean by equality is equality of outcome, and that at best. We all know it isn’t even that to the extent that the oppressed, victim class which redistribution must benefit will be raised above just as the oppressor class (men, or otherwise) must be pushed down. Thus equality of opportunity is the surface rhetoric, equality of outcome is the theory behind the rhetoric, but the reality even behind that is that such levelling will be manipulated to favour the ‘revolutionary classes’ and above all their leadership, the management.

What you are saying is that humans are not fair(and that is the problem)
Equality as something fair, implies that those who are not treated as equals are being treated unfairly. It is generalized as a human right to not allow us to question our differences, because if we do, and define fairness based on those differences then those groups who demand equality will lose the opportunities they already have that do not belong to their own group.
The question is if equality and opportunities should be given by humans or by nature. Because humans are biased, and nature is relentless. If humans have that power, i.e. the state, then the state would be taking the role of nature, for political purposes(and that is the problem).

One can conceive of natural law, but society still has to decide what is natural, unless of course you base natural law on religious revelation. Creating a system where all people have opportunities and there is some sense of creating fairness, or equality, for instance in the form of a principle that we are all equal under the law is still a departure from this, a limited form of social engineering, but where this is done openly – democratically – then there are checks and balances against the kind of excesses we get with revolutionary ‘equality of outcome’ thinking. The danger here I think lies mainly with rejecting an extreme position – communism, revolutionary feminism etc which seeks to mutilate humanity at an elemental level – only to take the diametrically opposed position – e.g. some kind of might is right notion of natural law

Good article, but I hate seeing stuff like this: “Initiating force is wrong, no matter who does it.”

False.

This may be hard to accept if you are less than 40 years old, because you have been marinated in a pussified equality stew your whole life, designed for the express purpose of emasculating you so that your weaker lessers could compete on a tilted playing field. But there is nothing wrong with violence per se. Believing otherwise is nihilistic and amoral. If there is nothing you can think of that would justify initiating violence in your mind, you need to do some self reflection, because you are a eunuch.

Tell us about this violence you engage in! Is this like when you tell people to kill the police if they “feel their arrest is unjust,” or is this something that ACTUALLY happened? Did you stand up to the playground bully? Good for you!

“Your honor, my attorney, Optimus Prime, assured me that I have the RIGHT to kill police officers if I feel that they are attempting to arrest me unjustly, so I don’t really understand what I’m on trial for…”

You are lost, kid…..
Behold the hallmark of the liberal: The inability to accept individual agency and accountability, and a further resistance to accept any action not predetermined and codified.
The whole reason we HAVE lawyers is because this shit is not always as black and white and you’d like it.

And the time to resist is when you are in a public place with your lawyer present, not in a back alley when the police are arresting you. Your lawyer will do you no good after the police put 16 bullets into you and you are lying dead on the street.

You would have been awesome during the civil rights movement. “Guys, uhhhh, massa’s here with his dogs and sitcks. Better just roll over and forget about your rights.” Your life is sad. What is it like to be as big a pussy as you are?

I disagree, they accomplished quite a lot. There were plenty of folks who really didn’t think the conditions for African Americans were all that bad.

When the Black Panthers started carrying guns around …(thanks for starting the push for gun control in CA) it shook a lot of them up. The violence did scare them, it did make them look harder at the situation.

I agree with many people that state the time to start pounding the table about your rights when being arrested is when you are in the jail and your attorney is there. Up to that point it should be Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full. There is a huge difference between demanding your rights and being an idiot.

I didn’t say otherwise. But cops are just people, they are not infallible, and there are plenty of criminals among them. When it is obvious that you are about the be on the receiving end of police violence not matter how unjustifed, it is of course up to you to decide whether to just take it or not, but people should know they are under no legal obligation to do so if the violence is unjust. Talking to your lawyer about your rights only works if you make it to jail in the first place, and we have seen tons of stories over the past two years that this doesn’t often happen.

Major upvote here as well. Indeed, nowadays a man frankly must be experienced, probably post-40 sun revolutions AND red pilled the fuck up enough to ditch the fraudulent equality construct in order to accept the important truth you just stated.

Violence can be demonstrated in different contexts. Best displayed through play fighting or just abrupt out of the blue attacks. For instance, you tell the lady to do something. She talks back. You quickly put her in a choke hold and tell her to apologize. All of this done in good spirits. That is key. She will be laughing and whining. You do not let up until she submits in apology. The more vicious the force the greater the chance she will accede with sexual advances.

These little moments show her who’s boss. Dominance must be demonstrated and your authority enforced every so often for maintenance. If the woman likes and respects you she will desire submitting to you.

It seems like your response is based on a simple misunderstanding of the article. It should be clear from the context of the article that what he means is that initiating violence in anything but extraordinary circumstances is wrong. It does not mean that self-defense is wrong.

I get the distinction you’re trying to make, but my issue is with the wording here – words matter. In fact, clever/duplicitous use of words is one of the ways that feminists wrecked the social contract. We should reclaim the power in words, and no accept these types of platitudes, even if we think the context bears our the real intent. Look at what happens with Trump – basically everything he says is selectively quoted and hyper-literally interpreted to arrive at the most harmful meaning. Knowing that’s the rule book these fuckers use, do not cede an inch. I refuse to accept the proposition that initiating for is wrong, no matter who does it.

But I would go further than you – I would also not say extraordinary circumstances are required prior to legitimate use of violence. For example, if my son tries to touch the knobs on the oven, I smack his hand (an initiation of violence) even though the oven is not on (no extraordinary circumstances). Feminists would argue such aggression is unjust because lesser means could be used to get the same message across. I disagree, but even if true, so what? That does not make my choice to use violence illegitimate. I sent a clear message that won’t be forgotten and is for his own good.

This is obviously just a simple example, but I categorically reject the idea that violence is inherently bad and undesirable, and thus appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances or self defense situations. Anyone who thinks that needs to read a history book. Violence, like anything else, is just a tool. The motives behind it can be good or bad. But the possibility of it being bad should not preempt violence when it is just. That is amoral.

Accordingly, I refuse to sign onto this phrasing, which even though intended to carry appropriate context, is still loaded with biased and unjustified assumptions, which are lurking in large part due to the societal indoctrination I referenced in my comment, and which can be wielded as a weapon by the very people this article attacks.

You are right sir!
Saying: “only when needed” is a way to remove the power and rights of a man.
everybody will say: “only when needed” as to present a more reasonable approach, than the “never hit a girl”, but in practice, they will never agree that any situation justifies violence.
“only when needed”, as much as it sounds reasonable, is a tool against man.

I follow Sean Connery’s standard: An open-handed slap is justified – if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning. If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I’d do it.

Ever been beaten up by a chick but still keep your mind? I have. I can keep a straight head through some serious shit. I build courses around it. People train for “going red” and set their minds to shut down. My brain lights up.

One hand was striking me. Or so it seemed. I saw hundreds of hands, maybe thousands.

-The hands of the army of cops that would throw me in jail if I defended myself.
-The hands of the cucked brainless sheeple jury that would say guilty.
-The hands of the prison guards who know what system they are working in but they can’t quit because big fat wifey with her diabeetus and the half-retarded kids she cranked out would not have health insurance and special needs benefits.
-The hands of the voters who were dumbed down by the hands of the teachers and weaponized democracy and got the “man must be arrested” laws put into place. All you need in some states is for the cops to show up at all – not even any assault, just her crying about something, and off to jail you go.
– The hand of the judge (most likely a feminist judge or a beta/gamma cuck) dropping the gavel as I’m being sentenced.

The only thing left to do was just take it (thankfully also trained for that) and keep my mouth shut, and then dump the miserable bitch later, in public, or with hidden cameras (done both) at the next opportune time.

It takes some preconditions other than training and cameras too. Like: don’t shack up with her. I think it might have been Roush that said “No man can be harmed as long as he has options”. Those words echo in my head every day.

While you write the truth, we are not living in any system run by and for any truth. Or logic for that matter.

I don’t disagree. I do not think that anyone should resort to violence on some half-cocked emotion. I’m getting at the underlying conditioning here that has tried to teach men for at least two, and perhaps more generations that “violence is never the answer.” That’s just wrong and should be categorically rejected from an intellectual standpoint. This is not to say that you should not make wise choices about whether to engage in violence – you certainly should because, as you point out, there can be serious consequences.

I said my comment more to get at the idea that once you have internalized the idea that violence is sometimes justified, it makes the decision to click off safe in the appropriate circumstance that much easier. Lots of bad shit can happen in life, as you know. And I’m not even talking the kind of apocalyptic societal collapse stuff that is often bandied about. I’m talking basic shit like being confronted by a bunch of feral “youths” at a gas station and having a few split seconds to decide what you’re going to do. In such situations, a man can either realize that there is no societal shame whatsoever in acting violently to defend his interests, or he can be one of these pussified faggots we often see who apologize to their robbers for their “privilege.” One category of people will survive, the others are prey animals, destined to be eaten.

Heya Nemisis, In the scenario where a pack of feral “youths” is menacing you – then they have initiated force. Through clear communication they have advised that they are bent on doing you harm, they have initiated the force and you can defend, including shooting until the threat is no longer present.

If someone calls you names then that is not force, and you can not initiate force. If someone calls you names – intended to harm your character, in public, then that is fraud and can be dealt with via law. Or where no legal remedy exists (or is reasonable, e.g. “fighting words” in a bar), you can use force.

“Initiating force is wrong, no matter who does it.” is true. As it is the “initiation” of force which is wrong.

“violence is never the answer.” is wrong as violence, large, overwhelming violence is the correct response to the initiation of violence.

“Initiating force is wrong, no matter who does it.” is true. As it is the “initiation” of force which is wrong.

Wrong. You can believe that if you want to, but I disagree.

Whether force is justified often depends on the perspective of the person who initiates it. (So too with whether force has even been “initiated” – remember that what I consider force may not be the same as what you consider force – no shit, there are people in my neighborhood who view strong words as an initiation of force). Not everyone who uses force is some gang banger who understands his moral culpability.

To put things another way, imagine that in an emergency someone has hoarded all the available food. They came by the food honestly, but their stockpile is the only food left. You and your children are starving, and you have made an offer to trade for some of the food, but this person refuses. You would let your children starve rather than initiate force because you think it’s morally wrong? If so, fine, but that’s not my choice. In my opinion, moral absolutes are unnecessarily clumsy and foolish.

Nice synopsis of why feminism is the enemy. Women, according to society are more valuable than men. Feminism not only allows women to push to it’s conclusion of making men the enemy but extending the sexual life span of fatties and cat ladies. Interestingly enough, feminism is all about the patriarchy. They regurgitate rape culture because they want to dually remind you of their bodies, their victim status, and capitalize on man’s desire to protect society.

There is no rape culture. There is no slut shaming. Not by the civilized men of a society anyway. But if the road of feminism starts back on its road, the contract of respecting women as the victims of society will come to an end. It will be an ugly day for all women if this happens.

If you have a son in public school, why not encourage him to lie that he is trans and join the female sports team. GRIND IN THE REALITY that there are physical differences between men and woman. Go use the girls restroom in Target, just because you FEEL like it.

Force the women out of every protected space that men had previously granted, until they beg for sexism to return.

The ladies used all the double standards we see today: Women make babies so they should be protected even if they’re old women long past their childbearing years and teenage boys drowned.

Feminism is an EXTENSION of chivalry where the damsel in distress claims the knight rescuing her from the dragon isn’t treating her as an equal (and flirts with the dragon to boot).

At best, there are feminist apologists and misguided MRA’s who believe that if only all the negative aspects of feminism were eliminated then it would work. They’re like corporate PR departments that send out a sympathetic spokesman to look after orphans after a disaster their company created in an effort to appear like they care. The spokesman probably does care about the orphans but he’s a tool of the system, not an opponent of it. Most feminist apologists are somewhat aware of this as they hope to forestall resistance against feminism by engaging in limited criticism of it.

The fatal flaw of feminism (besides that it doesn’t make much sense) is that even if all the feminists could suddenly stop hating men, they can’t. The reason is that since women clearly have a biological need for men to take care of them and to engage in hypergamy and double dip, they will undermine whatever equality they claim to want. Equality for them is someone else giving up something to be fair. When most of the women can’t find their alpha males, and children are starving o the streets, they need to portray women as victims in order to justify a welfare state and their own behavior. So pointing the finger at men is necessary in order to avoid it being pointed back at them.

I’m reminded of this scene in the Matrix film series where the councilman observes that humans can never truly defeat machines since we’ll always need them. The film Fight Club was about men revolting against the modern machine age of accepting servitude along with comfort.

Just as men evolved to lose hair because they started to wear clothes and millennials lose the ability to remember anything because they google on their smartphone (I avoid googling something I know I should remember in order to keep my memory sharp), women both evolved men to become these powerful protectors while they themselves lost not only the ability to protect themselves, but also even to make rational decisions.

“Math is hard” — Barbie

Even many men nowadays hate the idea of personal responsibility and making tough decisions so leaving that up to the powerful men (much like feminism’s relationship with big government) became sociobiologically engineered into most of their minds. This is why most women, and many men, shouldn’t be allowed to vote and there should be a poll test applied to all citizens: The ability to make a tough decision and stick with it.

I said that about 30 years ago but I elaborate because it’s useful to understand the historical reasons behind modern feminism (and how it’s really not all that modern). Here are the stages of anti-feminism:

Not to nitpick over any insignificant(?) detail, but the author stated that “most women still have pleasant personalities”. He MUST be including the aggregate total of females throughout the world, because he would pretty much have to in order to nullify the demeanor of the “ladies” in the Anglosphere.

It’s possible that a narrow majority of women in the Anglosphere have pleasant personalities but they are largely invisible. Here’s why: These women get married and have kids and largely drop off the radar. You don’t meet them in clubs and you don’t talk to them when they’re out walking their babies.

What you tend to meet are The Leftovers. One interesting thing about nasty women is that they’re quite efficient at making themselves single. In addition, the women who are visible are usually hit on by a lot of thirsty men and ruined or cynical.

In the states in particular, women are also lazy when it comes to initiating relationships because they’re taught by a hyperchivalrous/Disney culture to act like damsels in a castle waiting for their prince so they appear to be ambivalent (this way of acting tends to induce that mindset). IT doesn’t help when thirsty men provide validation for it.

A friend of mine has a teenage daughter whose not a serious looker. She said that my wife and I are “losers” because we met online and that a “proper” courtship would have him flirting with her, asking her out, and then going through the whole Shrek style fairtale courtship (her more attractive sister lucked out and had a chance meeting turn out favorably).

So there are a lot of affluent, reasonably attractive career women out there going to work and going home to their empty apartment wondering when Christian Gray might crash his helicopter by accident in front of her condo and ask to borrow her phone. 🙂

THis is exactly it. Archie wasn’t supposed to be laudable and lovable on that show. It was CO’s amazing delivery that made that happen. All in the Family is a show with a super liberal message not unlike Married with Children and all the other shows that outright made a caricature and mocked patriarchy

always remember that all in the family was mocking the values that are expressed that you like….archie was the butt of the joke. The fact that Carol O’Conner was so great made it seem less like it, but All in the Family was a very, very, very liberal tv show.

Archie Bunker is the Ron Swanson of the 70’s. I swear, Everytime these progtard writers try to make a caracitur of conservatives or libertarians, they end up stealing the show and highlight exactly why people tend to like them better than the pansy assed Leftist the rwleat of the cast. If you’ll notice, in all the shows where they try to make the conservative the butt if the jokes, they end up being the leader of the pack. Because it is a proven fact that Progressivism and Socialism are tyranny of the weak, and is subscribed to by weak, pussyfied men. Watch how all of these supposedly more enlightened pussy boys take the lead of the conservative character.

I know what ya mean about All in the Family being a liberal show. But it’s a fact that it’s the conservatives that took over the narrative, just by flocking to Archie. Norman Lear said in a interview that it kinda pissed him off that the Archie was embraced instead of ridiculed.

“f you’ll notice, in all the shows where they try to make the
conservative the butt if the jokes, they end up being the leader of the
pack.”
While this is true, if you look at current society the idea of the ignorant and inept “head of family” man as either a constant disappointment to or lapdog of his wife is thoroughly ingrained so it is hard to say that this method wasn’t a win for them.

That’s true. The Archie Bunkers, Lou Grants, and Ron Swanons of the world are rare.

Now it’s Raymond Fat Fuck King of Queens or Fat Ultra Blue Pill Fuck on that Mike and Molly show. Every single one of them are such simps, I can’t watch those shows. Or just about any show anymore really.

I still agree with Archie when he said; the way to stop plane high jacking is to issue every passenger a gun as they boarded.
I agree and add, the few hijackers would think twice about starting anything.

My wife is a “NAWALT”, anti feminist. Which is fine and dandy on the surface. She likes me to open the doors for her, she makes me dinner, she gets up at 2 am to take care of our youngest. We have a good marriage, but there is something that is in the back of my mind. Her behavior is all socially conditioned. At any time, if she goes through some midlife crisis or some cackling hen friend of hers convinces,, she could dump it all and decide to divorce me. I would then be legally bound to uphold my end of the bargain through child support and possibly alimony. Watching this happen to a coworker of mine has been very sobering. On the other hand, if she decides to stop her end of the bargain, there is nothing I can do.

I would wager that you’re mistaken, Jim. I think her values (like most of ours) are firmly set, especially since she’s witnessed firsthand the fruits of such attitudes and behaviors.
She’s likely beyond ditching it all for short-term gratification or ‘pop-enlightenment’.

statistically speaking, in my situation (her virgin, Mormon temple marriage, 13 years married already), we have about a 95% success rate, I am not too worried, but it does happen. The coworker I was referring to had a wife that got into an affair a few years ago and it all went down from there. On the surface, he was doing most things right,

In the back of her mind is the idea that you can have a midlife crisis and leave for a younger woman at any time, leaving her penniless and alone. She would then be morally bound to pursue alimony and child support for the good of her children.

I hate how all these men come here touting ‘masculinity’, ‘alpha male’, and the supposed virtues of being men. Truth be told, man is a disgrace to his creator and to mankind. Ego driven idiots who kill people because they were cut off in traffic to show ‘masculinity’ or ‘alpha male’ status, violent animals no different than monkeys (mass shootings, murders, etc are mostly men), ego driven animals whose egos have caused world wars, fools who cannot control themselves at the sight of a woman’s body – so whats so great about men? Lets smash the partriarchy and let the women rule! There are now female pilots, doctors etc which proves women were kept down by a partriarchy. So please stop talking as though men are all that. Only few are worthy of respect – please don’t take this comment personally/ let it bruise your egos.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the ladies, but there is a time and a place that us guys need away from women. 70 years ago, there were plenty of venues that guys had to get away from women. Clubs, work, sports…..Over time, those were all infiltrated by women such as yourself. One or two such as yourself are not bad. Eye candy, or your “tom boy” who is cool with the crowd. However, enough women come in, and they want to change things. They want to take the rough and tough of football and inject Lady Gaga into the half time show and whine about head injuries. This has happened with the fraternal organizations, bowling leagues, workplace, sports, titty bars,….pretty much anywhere that have been traditionally male venues for guys to act like guys. We are now relegated to internet websites which even these are being infiltrated.

You may be well meaning, but leave us alone. We don’t want your kind here.

Yep. Even when they start out sounding reasonable, they almost always end up attention-whoring. They just can’t help themselves: it’s a bit like the “nice girl” who goes to a frat party and ends up going wild. They always disappoint: that “awkward female commenter” chick who appeared here recently started out well enough, but fairly soon reverted to type…

Attention whoring I can cope with, it is basically everywhere. But what the women do almost from the start is tone policing. And then the White Knight proclivities of the men kick in and start rushing to the defense of the damsel in distress. The result is another male enclave destroyed.

I’ve noticed something at the store, buying some clothes. I see more and more women in men departments, sometimes with huge strollers, blocking the way. That fucking irritates me. They’re running around doing nothing all day and we can’t have some fucking space to shop ?

Men are loyal by default so its highly unlikely that would happen in real life unless the woman married someone wealthy in which case she new what she was signing up for and morals aren’t very high on her list anyway.

I hate how all these men come here touting ‘masculinity’, ‘alpha male’, and the supposed virtues of being men. Truth be told, man is a disgrace to his creator and to mankind. Ego driven idiots who kill people because they were cut off in traffic to show ‘masculinity’ or ‘alpha male’ status, violent animals no different than monkeys (mass shootings, murders, etc are mostly men), ego driven animals whose egos have caused world wars, fools who cannot control themselves at the sight of a woman’s body – so whats so great about men? Lets smash the partriarchy and let the women rule! There are now female pilots, doctors etc which proves women were kept down by a partriarchy. So please stop talking as though men are all that. Only few are worthy of respect – please don’t take this comment personally/ let it bruise your egos.

Why should the MAN pay alimony ? Why should the MAN leave his children with the woman who left him ?

Nobody forced her to marry ! Nobody put a gun on her head to get married ! She choose it ! and she did that for her OWN benefit !! Food, Shelter, Social Status, Amenities, Healthcare, Vacations, Pampering, On-demand No-Strings-Attached & Absolutely FREE Sex/Pleasure !!

If she cooked; she also eat that food !
if she cleaned; she also lived in the same place !
if she slept; she also got (more) PLEASURE !

She is NOT doing any “favor” & there’s nothing that she did “only” for her MAN !!

“…she would then be morally …”; Do you even know anything about “morals” !!

There’s a difference between women who like having their doors opened and those who expect it as a matter of entitlement. Feminism isn’t about equality (although some radicals pretend like it is) but rather the notion of women being victims/princesses and the whole world revolving around them. This is fed by thirsty betas hitting on them for sex and telling them what they want to hear.

Fortunately, properly raised women are somewhat resistant to other cackling hens because these women undermine each other. Feminists distrust men (who help them) while praising migrants and other women who do nothing for them.

The insulation part is critical. I have been married (in the US) for over nine years to a woman from a small, patriarchal, traditionalist, religious village in the Philippines. She was a 25 year old virgin at our wedding, and our two years of dating was 100% chaperoned. Key to our continued marriage is that she only watches Filipino TV (the streaming service from the Philippines is worth every penny), we don’t go to movies, and all her friends are immigrants (mostly other Filipinas). She has a very low opinion of American women, and would never listen to their BS. She believes the feminist crap is insanity (which it is). Her mother is a great source of rationality. Early on in our marriage my MIL told my wife that if she didn’t keep my balls drained, the woman down the street would. This is traditional wisdom being passed down from mother to daughter. This is no longer possible in the west as the mothers, and even the grandmothers, no longer possess this knowledge.

Somewhat related… in about 90% of the cases I have seen of friends or acquaintances that have brought foreign women stateside, once they start hanging around American females their relationship/marriage is pretty much toast.

Growing up, I loved me some Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, Robin Williams, Carlin and the other great pre-PC SJW era comedians. Being raised by a single mother, I always felt bad whenever they would lay into women during their routines. I didn’t actually start peeling back the onion layers until I was about 35…. which was around 7 years ago. I grew up witnessing the absolute worst of female behavior and was completely brainwashed about the truth of women. Took me years to finally see it for what it is.

Dude, if only I had understood Eddie Murphy: Raw when I first saw it. I mean, that thing is chock full of Red Pill truth. Would have saved me a lot of pain. I knew it was funny as hell, but I didn’t understand how true it all was.

I would love to buy some acreage, but on a single income (me), that would be tough, if not impossible. We have some chickens, but that is about all we have room for. We don’t have a TV, and she is kept busy with homeschooling the kids and church.

I wish women realized that the forbearance of men was not infinite. We are starting to see increased violence in divorce cases. The most dangerous form of law for a lawyer to engage in is family law. Better to be a lawyer for the mob don than to represent women in divorce.

A dude’s just gotta get more gangsta wiff his bitches, and keeps dem in line…

OT, but there was more bling and gold teef on the court after the Warriors clinched the NBA title last night, than you’d see at a Crips Convention…an awesome spectacle, to be sure, if you’re a thug named Darvequious, or a stripper named Bambi.

yeah, I considered Billy but did he actually count as “first family”
Rosalynn Carter and their kids seemed normalish. WIth Ford we are talking Betty ford and a son who was cast in Greece before being replaced with Lorenzo Lamas!

Good point. I think Baron will probably at least go away and spend his days getting his fidget spun by high-class whores like proper American royalty rather than continue to inflict preening self-righteous misery on us like Chelsea.

Millennial Woes recently uploaded a video about self-confidence, where he argues that men need a certain amount to succeed in life, whereas women can dispense with self-confidence altogether and do just fine.

I’ve listened to a couple of Steve-O’s interviews on the Joe Rogan podcast. It’s funny, but he seems like a legit nice guy. I almost feel sorry for him. It’s like he has a compulsion to destroy himself.

and this is why i don’t bang hoodrats or third world dumpster leavings…..I have been womanizing and living a hedonic life of woman after woman after woman after woman rarely using protection and have never contracted anything. I wouldn’t take my dick out of my pants to piss in a third world shithold like the philoppines let alone put it in one of those filthy shits they call women

I am a bit of a playboy for sure and probably should use condoms much more often than I do, but simply sticking to first world women with money and an education has kept me STD free for several decades of fucking just uncountable numbers of women.

Yup, unless my wife gets hit by a bus or we divorce, I doubt I will ever use one again. Just as you are getting into it, you have to stop and put it on (serious downer), then you might as well inject your dick with Novocaine. Can’t feel anything.

I very, very rarely use them. In fact, friday night i went out with a girl and she was the first time i had put one on since last october because despite being really young she was into a lot of fetish stuff including going to fetish clubs and that just went far enough to make we want to wrap up.

You get calloused to most of it. Go hunting and field dress a deer or whatever, and it isn’t much different. The bad ones are doctoring problems. Dehorning is one of the worst, especially if you go too deep. It is bone, very painful for the cattle, and if you cut off too much, you open into a sinus in their head. Best done while young, but that doesn’t always happen.

Nope, cut into the scrotum, delectably cut into this inner membrane, then just pull them out, along with the tendon and blood vessels. Lopping them off will cause too much bleeding. They usually don’t have near the reaction as branding of dehorning.

I’m a big fan of eating all parts of the animal. Granted the testicles were a mental block at first but they were great. The Egyptian chef at the place i like is fond of saying “anyone can throw a prime steak on the grill, knowing how to bake the testicles delicious takes skill and 5000 years of knowledge”

tastes will vary and to be fair I did grow up eating a lot of odd ball shit like brains and kidneys but I would at least give it a fair shot. When cooked properly, offal is some seriously good food. Go on, grab an adventurous date and take her out for some testicles.

Very low I would think. I have had a few blowbacks which needed tending to and i do have a bunch of plan b in my night stand incase timing works out badly but I don’t see any miniknees showing up on doorsteps.

Thank you doctor anonymous internet guy with random non descript disqus handle. I will tell the people at the doctors office that I go to quarterly for std check ups that their methodology must be faulty because a guy on the internet disagrees with their prognosis —- ooooorrrrrrr shut up faggot

Violence is actually a extremely normal human behavior and even crucial for proper function of human groups. Both violence towards women and towards other men.

Society has yet again tried to balance this out through a violence monopoly by government and police, based around higher ideals than physical conflict, but of course it doesn’t necessarily always work out this way.

Humans are still basically the same, the only things that have changed are governments and laws.

Even the police represent the need for regular violence for the proper function of the macro group / tribe of America, just for a supposedly more objective righteous standard of it.

Additionally violence used to be one of a man’s best tools both to protect his family along with enforce the optimal function in it as well, unfortunately these are now the domain of the government / law, and the government / law is a hardcore feminist.

It’s a brave new world and one in which men are increasingly marginalized, unfortunately they are still the main contributors.

What we really need is a male movement, same as feminism, where men fight for true equality to women, and where we in fact support and encourage feminism, that is legitimate equality to women.

that was a public service announcement on how men were “supposed” to act for women. How much that jives with reality? Not much. No wonder the 1960’s had a generation of leftist rebels. They were being force fed this crap and saw through it. Now, we are being force fed crap from the other side of the aisle and we see through it. Guess what is going to happen in the near future?

I have never in my life laid hands on a woman, but I know many of us have been in situations where we have salivated at the idea… these videos are just as satisfying without the negative side effect of jail time.

It is noticeble in this an the video in the main article how many of these aggressive women are black Americans. These do seem to be the worst, perhaps because of the high numbers brought up by single mothers, and the great influence of feminism there. The other noticeable thing is how poor the technique displayed by the men, does nobody learn to box anymore?

It is the double standards that kill me. Feminists claim that the point of feminism is to relieve both men and women of their historical roles, yet men are still largely expected to be chained to theirs. I recall once mentioning in a politics class that the most appropriate response for men in the current environment is to stop being ‘gentlemen’ because women are no longer ladies. The response was deafening. They just couldn’t get their hands around the fact that I was advocating for men to act ‘disobediently’.

The fact is ‘gentlemen’, if we all decided to go our own way (not MGTOW), society would crumble fast. Feminists will never let us become ‘liberated’ because their entire agenda is dependent on male earnings via taxation. What would become of their precious welfare state if most of us decided to work part time?

“The fact is ‘gentlemen’, if we all decided to go our own way (not MGTOW), society would crumble fast. Feminists will never let us become ‘liberated’ because their entire agenda is dependent on male earnings via taxation. What would become of their precious welfare state if most of us decided to work part time?” Its already happening, read “Men on Strike” by Dr Helen Smith.

These fat ugly women hate the social contract between men and women because no real man will have anything to do with them, the only kind of guy is either totally desperate or the pathetic little hen pecked guy of the old forties and fifties cartoons.

No fucking way is a fat woman respectful to a man- it is NOT possible. The idea that any guy wants to stick his dick in a pile of blubbery goo or look at this goo with any kind of pride is mentally sick. Society pushing it on men to accept these FAT SLOBBY she cows is even more demented. Woman use sex to get a relationship and men give attention to the woman- this is her relationship…. Stop giving them ATTENTION – let them mentally die in their own demented swill. Let the feminist take care of them. When you see a cow – call a cow by its name.. MOOOOOOO

Maybe he overreacted; but she clearly initiated the violence. She shoved and then struck him before he touched her. “Luckily” for him (Joe Mixon) it was all caught on tape, they still tried to crucify him. I believe he escaped criminal charges but heard she was suing him.

I don’t know that he overreacted, she was clearly the aggressor. If you start a fight, then you had better be prepared to end it, not call in big Daddy to fight in your corner. If a woman is not being violent, then I am ABSOLUTELY against a man using his superior strength and speed against her. But if she breaks that social contract, well then it is broken, and everyone has the right to defend himself. Time the law got that into their heads – and feminists, too. Women are still privileged here. Not using superior strength but keeping it on a verbal level is handing an advantage to women. If they are too stupid to realise that, well, then karma steps in.

My Dad’s rule was simple– in any fight you’re all in and it’s about survival because you will never know how far the other party is willing to take it. The fact that you likely won’t be sure whether they have a weapon on them or whether they have allies in the immediate vicinity who will jump in. You never lose the fight you avoid, which should always be your go to option- but you stop the threat as quickly as possible.

One of my favorite movies is The Quiet Man, John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara. In the chaperoned courting scene she starts to take a swing at him and the chaperone says, “Now. Now. Have the good manners not to hit the man until you are married and he has the right to hit you back.” That tells it all. Back then marriage actually was fair, or at least fairer.

BTW. Earlier in the film she MO takes a full arm swing to slap him and he catches it in his left hand, blocking the blow. In the course of filming this MO had broken her hand.

You have a very romanticized and utopian idea of the way things were between men and women in tne 1950s and 1960s. Sure third-wave feminists have gone of the rails and postmodernism is a cancer that blocks logical thinking. But women were disenfranchised during the middle of the last century. How their daughters and granddaughters turned out so horrid is a mystery, but I suspect it’s as much their daddies faults as their mommies.

That’s kind of orthogonal, since it has to do with the class system, but I agree that men have done all the dirty work and much of the dying in wars. Poor people have always been useful fodder, men more so than women.

Western society is so toxic its actually now interfering with business cause so many men are now waking up to red pill because of wonder-woman “Womans only” screening that they are refusing to cooperate, that movie was like a big giant red pill bomb that is also spreading across the globe. Soon men will build, men only gyms, men only clubs, men only resturants, men only taxi’s, men only gold courses…list goes on.

While I love your enthusiasm for men only spaces. Those things actually used to exist, then were shut down one by one by the government and feminist groups. Insisting that women be allowed to join. I remember a woman in the ’80’s sued the NYSE, because the mens toilets were male dominated and she couldn’t over hear stock tips. Lots of men only clubs have been destroyed by feminism. If they were to re-appear, then they would be be destroyed all over again. Women only clubs, curiously are still allowed to operate, because vagina.

I recently read an interesting article by feminist Kate Millet’s sister, here’s a quote regarding the goals and strategies of feminism:

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now, it was
Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.

“To make revolution,” they answered.

“What kind of revolution?” she replied.

“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.

“By destroying the American family!” they answered.

“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.

“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

“By taking away his power!”

“How do we do that?”

“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.

“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

Married women remaining in the paid workforce was normalized from the late 60’s to early 70’s because labor-saving machines had freed them from drudgery and they had too much time on their hands. It was expected they would leave to raise children, then return. So long as wifey earned a pittance compared to hubby, this played out. However, once wifey’s income crossed 30% of household income, delaying children coupled with return to paid employ shortly after birth became normalized. Most men supported this as they supported normalization of non-marital sex and legalization of abortion because it seemed an ace deal at the time. “Feminism” couldn’t have thrived absent men’s cooperation and consent and the hook was unmarried sex absent financial and legal responsibility and married sex with diminished financial responsibility.

I love this article. But we should be critical. Feminism especially the first wave was not bad per se. Allowing women to be held accountable and gaining equal rights under the law as the constitution describes. And while I totally subscribe to the idea the violence is outlawed to an insane degree justifying duels and “fights for honor” seems very anachronistic. The sand people still fight “for their honor” and this is barely above a tribal level when it comes to civility.

ThePiller, WRONG!!!! WTF are you thinking? Smoke pot much? Women having “equal rights” while retaining ancient female privileges is UNACCEPTABLE. Women voting and holding political office is the demise of any and all societies. Rome ended this way also. Read the stats on increased taxes, increased national debt, etc immediately upon females voting in this country.

A woman at work was telling several other women that she likes to spank, abuse, and humiliate her husband. She made the mistake of asking me what I felt about that. I told her that any guy who would let a woman do that to him isn’t a real man and probably has mental illness. She doesn’t talk to me any more.

even homosexuals have the “man” and the “women” as its engrained in our biology and the best relationship dynamic

0

0

Top 5 Most Popular Posts

ROK Donation Drive

If you’re getting value from ROK, consider making a donation through the Roosh Booster Club to help us publish better articles and compensate our writers. Your donation is crucial in the face of Silicon Valley’s cockblocking campaign against us. Click here to learn full details.

Flagship ROK Shirt Has Landed

After many months of delay, we have launched Red Kings Shop to provide you with ROK apparel that will Kratomize your testosterone levels, massively increase the size of your penis, and make you the most beloved shitlord in your city. Click here for launch details.